I’ve received some traffic regarding my post about the trash on the southern border. Here are some more photos.

I can’t remember the last time a week passed where I didn’t read about an environmentalist group that was upset about something. Sheep in Kofa, air quality in Maricopa county, owls, little fish, wolves - you name it. Groups like the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity are not shy about speaking their minds and launching litigation. Sometimes they are on the mark, sometimes not. I would be interested in knowing however, why they think we should establish a vast “zone of protection” for visiting jaguars, but this is OK:

No matter which side of the immigration debate you’re on, it’s hard to deny the absolute and terrible damage being done to our desert ecosystems in Arizona. These are not isolated eyesores. Anyone who has been to southern Arizona can find mountains of trash. Trails cut into fragile desert areas, due to the foot traffic inflicted by tens of thousands of people heading north. “Lay-up” areas have been found in wilderness areas as far north as Phoenix and beyond. I have found trash just south of Florence. It is no exaggeration to say that there are washes full of trash that measures knee-deep. Not to mention the “rape trees” - trees decorated with ladies’ undergarments, victims of rape - trophies for the coyotes. For pictures of garbage, trails, abandoned vehicles - visit Desert Invasion.

Step aside from the political and social problem of illegal immigration for a moment. Think purely of the ecological issues at hand. Imagine some of the issues you’ve heard or read about environmental groups taking on, and taking on with gusto. Does this issue not warrant their energy? Is it not serious enough? Look at the photos. Take a trip to the south - see for yourself. Where are the environmental groups? I guess when their political agenda is stronger than their supposed environmental motives, they suddenly lose their voice. Regardless of your thoughts on SB1070, regardless of your position on illegal immigration - look at the damage being done. Nobody should be hollering “build the danged fence” louder than the environmental groups. They are the self-proclaimed stewards - where are they?

Many of us “pooh-pooh” the worries about gun control as alarmist. I can’t verify the facts in this video, but there is enough information raised here to heighten my vigilance. ~DesertRat

I rarely post political stuff on this blog, unless it directly affects hunting and fishing. I believe illegal immigration fits that bill. As many of you know, for a couple of years now, the maps found in the Game and Fish Regulations indicate a “zone” along the border, with a statement that “Homeland security issues along the international border may affect the quality of a person’s hunt”. Following the passage of SB1070, I was deeply offended to be branded a racist for supporting this law. A drastically shorter version of the following editorial is scheduled to appear in Wednesday’s edition of the Arizona Republic (Mesa edition) ~Desert Rat

Racist? Really?

I am an immigrant. I am not a racist.

I have lived in the United States for almost twenty years, the past thirteen I have lived in Arizona. I love Arizona. I love how the landscape can change when you drive two hours in any direction. I love the weather. I love the west. I love the culture. I grew up in a small town in eastern Canada. Moving to Arizona was like moving to a different world. There’s big city and rural living, there’s awesome scenery, there’s a wonderful history, there’s saguaros, and there is the Hispanic influence that flavors life in Arizona at every turn. I love it all. That being said, the recent strife that came as a result of the signing of SB1070 has been one of the saddest periods of nearly two decades of my living in the US. It is a period when I was called a racist, likened to a Nazi, and accused of being a bigot. Not just by people I don’t know, people of polar opposites of the political spectrum; rather, by friends, by colleagues, by co-workers. By people, who it seemed, for the most part - hadn’t even read the bill. These were the people I considered free thinkers. I was not surprised by opposition to the bill, I was surprised by the lack of intellectual effort in having a debate. It seems that the race card was the first thing that many folks went for, and for them - it was enough.

I am not so naive to think that racism doesn’t exist any more. Of course it does. Ironically, racism isn’t solely a Caucasian affliction - it knows no boundaries. I’m sure it flourishes in small numbers, on both sides of this debate. I however, am no racist. When I moved to the United States all those years ago, I was told to carry my Green Card with me, wherever I went. I wasn’t sure exactly what would happen to me if I didn’t, but I didn’t want to find out. To my knowledge, I have never left my house without my documentation in all of these years. What a crazy world it has become, when a person is called a racist, for not factoring race into an equation. When I first read of SB1070, race never entered my mind. We, as a society, have been conditioned over the years to be color blind, and rightly so. I didn’t think “Wow, the Mexicans better look out!”. When a new drug law is announced, I don’t think “Boy, those white-trash tweakers are in for it.” Now, it seems, we should think of race, with this new law. The mantra of the past few years has been “tolerance, fairness, be careful not to offend, see the other person’s point of view”. People were awfully quick to call a large portion of the population racists, though. Is that tolerance? Fairness? I understand that many of the people here illegally came here for a better life. How is that fair to all of the people trying to enter this country legally, and all of those before them? Talk to the folks living on the border, the ranchers and others. They are suffering devastating losses to property and livestock. Who stands up for them? Because there were many people that I respected so vehemently opposed to this law, I have read it at least three times. Reading through the bill, I’m sorry - I just cannot draw a straight line from the legislation as written to “pull over all of the brown people”. I just can’t. I have tried to see the other point of view. I’m not getting it. Something else has to initiate the stop, and a Drivers’ License is enough to send you on your way. It’s a virtual cut and paste of existing Federal law, with lots of anti-profiling mechanisms written in.

The Federal Government, over several administrations had failed miserably, and possibly purposefully, to address the immigration issue. They have not secured the border. They have not made legitimate paths to citizenship quick or easy. They have not cracked down on businesses employing illegal immigrants. That there is indeed a mess, I think most of us can agree on. As I watch people protest against this law, I can’t help but wonder if many of the people would be against any attempt to enforce illegal immigration. Let’s face it - the problem has gone on so long that illegal immigrants are woven into the fabric of our society, especially in the states along the southern borders. They are our co-workers. Their children attend our schools, we worship with them, we go to the gym with them, we share games at the park with families that are undocumented. I cannot imagine any type of serious enforcement that won’t cause pain and hardship in our communities. So, maybe the 30-40% of Arizona’s population that opposes this bill is against any enforcement of immigration laws. I don’t know. I haven’t heard many alternatives offered. Not much constructive criticism. Just protesting. Just name-calling. So, maybe we’re at a crossroads. Ignore the problem. Amnesty. Comprehensive reform. I don’t have the answer, except to say that sometime, somewhere, the rule of law must prevail. I would go so far as to offer that many of the people who come to our country illegally come because the rule of law has been abandoned in their home countries. Drug wars. Tyranny. Corruption. Real ethnic cleansing. Does anyone else see the irony? Abandon our laws to accommodate those who circumvented the law to come here from their broken countries that abandoned their laws. If racism is a by-product of a well-intended law, help us understand. Read the law. Offer well thought-out alternatives. Offer rational arguments. Help us see what you are saying.

The real victims in the days and weeks following the passage of SB1070 have been our law enforcement officers. It appears that roughly 30% of our population doesn’t trust them to enforce this law fairly and objectively. How sad. They are good enough to respond to our home invasions, good enough to assist in our traffic accidents, perfectly capable of looking for our teenage runaways, investigate assaults and homicides, and otherwise keep our communities safe. How discouraged and resentful they must be that their collective professionalism has been called into question. Make no mistake - there are bad cops. There are racist cops. But those officers are the exception, not the rule. Those officers are already pursuing their racist agendas and will continue to be rooted out. I can only hope that my professionalism is never judged by the populace, based on the actions of only the worst in my industry.

I am no legal expert - maybe this is a poorly written law. It was clearly written as a reaction to the Federal neglect of the border problem. But a racist law? Really? All of those legislators are racists? The police are racists? I’m a racist? For making an existing Federal law a State Law? Seriously? C’mon. Both sides of any political argument these days have alarmists. Have those who thrive on rhetoric. Have extremists bent on whipping their “side” into a frenzy. Those people I usually ignore. This time though, the racist card was played too quickly, by people who knew better. It detracted from a logical, well thought-out argument against the legislation. That, I could handle. Don’t call me a racist though, because we’ve excluded race from the equation. Just like we’re supposed to.

Below is a photo taken a few hundred yards away from my friend’s house in Sierra Vista. Garbage, trespassing and damage to his property is a near-constant fact of life for him.

Boy, I don’t know what to think about this one. I’m a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights. I’ve also taken the Arizona CCW class and frankly, was astounded regarding how much I learned. I spent 13 years in the military, was a qualified Range Safety Officer, and taught classes on weapons ranging from 9mm handguns to 105mm howitzers.

The CCW class teaches a lot about Arizona laws. It teaches a lot about de-escalating situations. It teaches a lot about your responsibilities. There are a lot of numbnuts out there that think it is cool to carry, and have nary a clue on how to even handle a weapon. Just look at the guy in El Mirage who popped a round into the ceiling the other night. Idiot. ~DesertRat

You can read the full article about the new law here: http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=12282386

Ariz. House approves concealed weapons bill
Posted: Apr 09, 2010 1:22 AM
Updated: Apr 09, 2010 1:22 AM

By JONATHAN J. COOPER
Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX (AP) - The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

The legislation, approved by the House 36-19 without discussion, would make it legal for most U.S. citizens 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the measure, said last week that he added changes requested by Gov. Jan Brewer’s office, an indication that she is likely to sign it. The governor can sign or veto the measure, or allow it to become law without action.

If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons. Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states - Illinois and Wisconsin - prohibit them altogether.

Supporters say gun restrictions only affect people who want to follow the rules because criminals will carry hidden guns regardless of the law. Nearly all adults can carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and they shouldn’t face additional restrictions when they want to hide the weapon, supporters argue.

“What’s dangerous is when they’re in criminals’ hands, not citizens’ hands,” said Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, a bill sponsor.

Opponents argue legalizing concealed weapons will make it easier for criminals to carry them, endangering police. They also worry the bill would lead to more accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearm safety.

Read the full article at the link above.

Two Pro-Gun Bills Making Progress in the Arizona House

Two NRA-backed bills are scheduled for the Committee of the Whole (COW) on Thursday, March 25. After these bills, better known as Constitutional Carry (House Bill 2347) and Preemption Reform (House Bill 2543), leave the COW they will be on the house floor for their third and final reading next week.

Currently under Arizona law it is generally legal to carry a firearm openly as long as you are 18 years of age and not prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, if the firearm becomes covered, say with a coat, or if you are a woman and prefer to carry your firearm in your purse, you need to possess a concealed carry permit. The intent of this legislation is to give people the greatest possible freedom to choose the best method of carry for them.

Back in 1994, when the original Right-to-Carry bill passed, opponents made outrageous claims that there would be shootouts in the streets, and that the murder rate would skyrocket. Opponents to the original Right-to-Carry bill, such as a large number of law enforcement groups, can now freely admit that none of these radical predictions have come true.

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott demonstrates statistically that as training requirements are relaxed, more crimes are deterred as more people carry firearms for self-defense. In Arizona, 16 years after the passage of its original concealed carry law, the murder rate has gone down as the carry rate has gone up. Today, nearly all law enforcement organizations are neutral on HB 2347.

Under Arizona’s current constitution, Article 2, Section 26 clearly states that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired.” The intention here could not be clearer.

HB 2543, is a preemption reform bill, which would make many much needed improvements to the current preemption statute. HB 2543 would strengthen Arizona’s preemption statute by removing unnecessarily burdensome restrictions on the transportation and possession of firearms, increasing the protection from local towns and cities passing restrictive ordinances against carry or possession of firearms, and providing future protection for lawful storage of firearms, ammunition and ammunition components.

If not for a strong and uniform state preemption law, the result can be a complex patchwork of restrictions that change from one local jurisdiction to the next. It is unreasonable to require citizens, whether residents of Arizona or someone visiting Arizona, to memorize a myriad of laws and possibly violate a local ordinance even though it was clear there was no criminal intent.

Please continue to contact your State Representative and urge him or her to support HB 2347 and HB 2543. Your State Representative’s contact information can be found by clicking here.

Cabela’s Targeted by National Animal Rights Group

(Columbus) – One of the nation’s largest anti-hunting groups, Defenders of Wildlife, have taken aim at Cabela’s Inc. with a misguided and misleading public relations campaign designed to raise money to fund its efforts against outdoor sports.

According to an action alert posted by Defenders, the group accused Cabela’s of sponsoring three so-called “wolf-killing competitions” in Idaho. The group also attacked Cabela’s for the decision by the local paper in Sidney, Nebraska to not run an inflammatory ad against Cabela’s that Defenders had produced. It then went on to solicit funds to run the ad in other papers throughout the state.

The charges by Defenders are grossly misleading. Cabela’s did not sponsor any “wolf-killing” events. Rather, it provided $150 worth of products as a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho organization. That group organized and conducted three local predator hunts in 2009. The hunts complied with all state and federal laws. Additionally, all available information indicates that no wolves were killed during the hunts.

Cabela’s has been a long-time supporter of legal hunting and fishing and has worked closely with state and federal wildlife agencies to conserve wildlife populations. They are renowned in the business world as a leader in conservation programs and ethic. By contrast, Defenders has been one of the leaders in an effort to keep the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population on the Endangered Species List despite the recovery of their population and reasonable management plans designed by state officials.

“Defenders of Wildlife is attempting to tarnish the reputation of one of the most wildlife conscious companies in the world,” said Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “Sportsmen should show their support by visiting a local Cabela’s and let them know that you appreciate their efforts and are not fooled by the antis’ propaganda.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.

“Sponsors wolf-killing competition” - I feel bad for the uneducated who suck this stuff up. Don’t like hunting? Fine. Educate yourself and make an informed decision. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. These groups are out to lunch ~DesertRat

Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks

On February 22, a new law took effect that applied state firearms laws to national parks and wildlife refuges across America.

The implementation of the new law, which the National Park Service (NPS) has planned for since passage of H.R. 627 last May, has so far been without major problems. NPS management reports that it has worked with the 493 individual parks, promoting a consistent message on several key points:

Under the new law, every park is subject to all the firearms laws of the state (or states) where the park is located.
Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries. (For information on state laws, go to www.nraila.org/gunlaws.)

The new law affects firearms possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.

It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a “federal facility.”

ARIZONA: Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment Introduced! Arizona’s Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment needs your support. HCR 2008 was recently introduced in an effort to guarantee the future of hunting for generations to come. This measure is currently awaiting a committee hearing and, if passed and ultimately approved by the voters, would make Arizona one of nearly a dozen states with such a constitutional protection. It is critical that you contact your State Representative and respectfully urge him or her to support this important constitutional amendment. Contact information can be found by clicking here.

U.S. Forest Service Releases Plan Restricting the Use of Motor Vehicles in the Kaibab National Forest

The U.S. Forest Service released a Travel Management Project (TMP) for the Williams Ranger District within the Kaibab National Forest. The TMP will determine the future use of roads and trails for motorized access into the forest and can be viewed on-line at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/projects.

Public comments are being accepted until Sunday, March 7 and can be emailed to: [email protected] or mailed to Martie Schramm, Williams District Ranger, 742 South Clover Road, Williams, AZ 86046.

The TMP will affect what is labeled as Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR). The TMP states that motor vehicles could be allowed within a specified distance of certain designated routes and within specified time periods solely for the purposes of retrieving a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal. However, motorized off-road travel for other hunting activities, such as scouting or accessing a favorite hunting site, would not be allowed. Any game retrieval that is not specifically allowed in the final TMP would require non-motorized methods.

Four management alternatives are described and all address MBGR. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would allow big game retrieval to continue to be allowed across the Ranger District. Alternative 2, the alternative supported by the Forest Service, would allow MBGR with restrictions. Alternative 3 would increase the MBGR restrictions. Alternative 4 would prohibit the use of motor vehicles for MBGR off the designated road system. The TMP addresses the impacts of the alternatives on camping as well.

It is important for those sportsmen and women who depend upon the Kaibab National Forest, and particularly the Williams Ranger District, for big game hunting to review the TMP and comment on the four alternatives. The Forest Service needs to know how the alternatives would affect your ability to hunt on these forest lands and which of the alternatives, if any, you support.

The Forest Service will be hosting two meetings on the TMP. The first will be held on Wednesday, February 24 at the Williams Ranger Station from 6-8 p.m. and the second will be held at the Williams Recreation Center (301 W. Railroad Ave., Williams) on Saturday, March 6 from 1-3 p.m. For further information, please call 928-635-5614.

Hostile Amendment Added to Arizona Constitutional Carry Bill!

On Thursday, during the Committee of the Whole (COW) debate on Senate Bill 1102, State Senator Ken Cheuvront (D-15) added a hostile amendment, by a vote of 15 to 14, which would prohibit the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the seller asks for “proof of citizenship.”

The amendment is an unnecessary imposition on lawful private party transfers and heavily flawed. As drafted, if the purchaser presents an Arizona Drivers license issued after 1996 or a photocopy of another state’s driver ID card, the purchaser would meet the “proof of citizenship” requirement. The main problem with this amendment is that it arbitrarily and unconstitutionally forbids eligible purchasers from obtaining firearms at gun shows and conscripts private citizens to enforce a flawed understanding of state and federal law. Under this amendment, non-citizens who are legal residents of Arizona, who can serve in the military and enjoy all the protections of the Bill of Rights, would be unable to legally purchase a firearm in their own state.

Senator Cheuvront had previously offered the same amendment in Judiciary committee during the hearing of SB 1102 and it was defeated. The amendment can be found here:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/s.1102cheuvront1027.pdf.

The vote had 100% support from the Democratic caucus, and three Republicans voted with them. If any one of the three Republicans had not voted for this hostile amendment it would have failed. State Senator Jonathan Paton (R-30) successfully worked to defeat the same amendment in the Senate Judiciary committee, but was unfortunately called away on a family emergency and could not fight against it on the floor.

At this time SB 1102 will be held, but there are still other bills pending that would accomplish the same goal of fully implementing Arizonans’ right to carry firearms for self-defense. Please continue to check your email and http://www.nraila.org for updates.

You can read the full story here: US Fish and Wildlife Director.

From FoxNews:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dies During Ski Vacation

AP

Sam Hamilton, 54, suffered chest pains while skiing at Keystone resort in Colorado.

WASHINGTON — The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service died Saturday after suffering chest pains while skiing in Colorado. Sam Hamilton was 54.

The 30-year veteran of the agency, who assumed its top post in September, died in the afternoon after being transported off the Keystone Ski Area, said Joanne Richardson, Summit County coroner. She said his death was consistent with an underlying heart problem.

Hamilton helped lead restoration work in the Everglades, the largest ecosystem restoration project in the country. He oversaw the extensive recovery and restoration efforts required following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated coastal wetlands, wildlife refuges and other wildlife habitat along the Gulf of Mexico.

Read the full story at the link above.

I think this is a good choice. What do my readers think? ~DesertRat

Sahuarita poice chief appointed to Game and Fish Commission

PHOENIX – John Harris, the police chief of Sahuarita, Ariz., and a veteran reserve Arizona game ranger, has been appointed to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission by Gov. Jan Brewer.

On Feb. 16, the Arizona State Senate confirmed the nomination. Harris, a 35-year law enforcement veteran, will be filling the commission seat of outgoing commissioner Bob Hernbrode, who lives in Tucson.

In an interview following his confirmation, Harris said he has had phenomenal opportunities during his lifetime to experience the outdoors and participate in wildlife-related recreation. “My goal is to ensure that my 22-year-old daughter and her future children are also able to have such experiences.”

Harris added that he wants to take th e great things that have been done regarding wildlife and work to make them even better.

“There are always ways you can make improvements. But I have also learned that it’s always easy to come up with ideas while sitting on the sidelines, but you can see things differently once you are actually involved and learn more. I want to learn more before putting forth a lot of ideas.”

Harris will have plenty of opportunity to learn and have input. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission establishes policy for the management, preservation, and harvest of wildlife. The commission also makes the rules and regulations for managing, conserving, and protecting wildlife and fisheries resources, and safe and regulated watercraft and off-highway vehicle operations for the benefit of the citizens of Arizona.

Harris has been a police chief for 15 years, serving two years in Pleasant Hill, Mo., eight years in Springfield, Ill., three years in Evanston, Wyo., and currently three years in Sahuarita.

Harris started his law enforcement career with the Tucson Police Department, and he retired in 1993 after achieving the rank of assistant police chief. For 10 of those years he volunteered as a game ranger for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. On returning to Arizona in 2006, Harris was reinstated as a reserve game ranger and serves in that capacity in southern Arizona.

Wildlife and wildlife issues have been a lifelong passion for Harris. Along with professional experience and education, he has been very active in the conservation field. He is a life member of the National Rifle Association, the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Grand Slam Club, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He is a member of the Arizona Antelope Society, the Safari Club International Arizona chapter, and the Mule Deer Foundation.

Harris is past president of both the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society and the Wild Sheep Foundation. While serving as president of the Wild Sheep Foundation, Harris partnered with Warren Parker from Safari Club International and helped to start the United States Congressional Sportsman Caucus.

Harris holds a Master of Arts degree in criminal justice from Western Illinois University and a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Arizona in public administration with the major field of study being law enforcement. He attended the 151st session of the FBI MLEEDS Executive Development program, the Illinois Law Enforcement Executive Institute, and the FBI’s Southwest Command College.

Harris will serve a five-year term on the Game and Fish Commission. The commission is comprised of five members (serving staggered five-year terms) appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. No more than one commissioner may be from any one county. No more than three may be from the same political party. The commission is the civilian policy setting board overseeing the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Since its inception in 1929, this organizational structure has served as a buffer for the best interests of wildlife conservation during eight decades of back-and-forth political change.

The Game and Fish Department operates on revenue-driven “user pay, user benefit” business model and relies on non-tax dollars – it receives no tax money from the state’s general fund.

-30